Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-409 (2026)

Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or assisting in preventing the escape after arrest or detention of that other person, such person uses or threatens to use physical force and all of the following exist:

1. A reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or detention or prevent the escape.

2. Such person makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or believes that it is otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested or detained.

3. A reasonable person would believe the arrest or detention to be lawful.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 23× “We today hold that plaintiffs cannot assert a negligence claim based solely on an officer's intentional use of physical force.”
State v. Flores, 260 P.3d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “¶ 16 A.R.S § 13-409 (2011) dictates the appropriate amount of force which may be applied by an officer during an arrest.”
Weekly v. City of Mesa, 888 P.2d 1346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 19× “” In order to avoid arguments as to retroac-tivity, the City contended that the amendment constituted a statement of the legislature’s original intent to exclude police dogs from the statute, thus clarifying an “inconsistency” between A.R.S. § 13-409, which allows law…”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “1994) (plaintiff bitten by police dog during arrest entitled to have case submitted to jury; defendant could base defense on justification statutes, A.R.S. §§ 13-409 and 13-413); Havier v. Partin, 16 Ariz.”
State v. Doss, 966 P.2d 1012 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “) The use of physical force by a peace officer in making an arrest is governed by A.R.S. § 13-409, which provides: A person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another if in making or assisting in making an arrest or detention or in preventing or…”
Brailsford v. Foster, 393 P.3d 138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-409 and -410. A challenge to procedures used to establish probable cause “has no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal.”
State v. Korzep, 799 P.2d 831 (Ariz. 1990). “…of a third person, § 13-406; defense of premises, § 13-407; defense of property, § 13-408; and law enforcement, §§ 13-409 (nondeadly force) and 13-410 (deadly force). Section 13-411, however, differs from these other justification defenses. Although the only limitation…”
Pfeil v. Smith, 900 P.2d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “In a civil action, the burden of proof is by the preponderance of the evidence, and the defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense.”
State v. Thomason, 783 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “…of a third person, § 13-406, defense of premises, § 13-407, defense of property, § 13-408, and law enforcement, §§ 13-409 and -410. Section 13-411, however, differs somewhat from these other sections. Under § 13-411, the only limitation upon responding with deadly force…”
State v. Matthews, 428 P.3d 198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" A.R.S. § 13-409(1). As noted in the Revised Arizona Jury Instructions ("RAJI"), an excessive force instruction under § 13-3881(B) is appropriate only when the defendant claims his resistance was justified by an officer's excessive use of force.”
English-Clark v. City of Tucson, 690 P.2d 1235 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 13-2409 because she did not “by means of bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation or force or threats of force [knowingly attempt to] obstruct, delay or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal *525 statute to a peace…”
State v. Yoshida, 986 P.2d 216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-409(1). ¶ 12 The trial court found that the officer placed her arm around the Defendant’s neck but concluded that this did not constitute unlawful physical force, noting that the “[Djefendant did not testify that she was unable to breathe or that she was about to…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-409(1) — 6 cases
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). “We today hold that plaintiffs cannot assert a negligence claim based solely on an officer's intentional use of physical force.”
State v. Matthews, 428 P.3d 198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 13-409(1). As noted in the Revised Arizona Jury Instructions ("RAJI"), an excessive force instruction under § 13-3881(B) is appropriate only when the defendant claims his resistance was justified by an officer's excessive use of force.”
State v. Yoshida, 986 P.2d 216 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “A.R.S. § 13-409(1). ¶ 12 The trial court found that the officer placed her arm around the Defendant’s neck but concluded that this did not constitute unlawful physical force, noting that the “[Djefendant did not testify that she was unable to breathe or that she was about to…”
State v. Molinar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson, 539 P.3d 906 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-409(3) — 1 case
Mesa v. Hon. driggs/charon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.